Once-Weekly Semaglutide in Adults with Overweight or Obesity.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a global health challenge with few pharmacologic options. Whether adults with obesity can achieve weight loss with once-weekly semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg as an adjunct to lifestyle intervention has not been confirmed. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we enrolled 1961 adults with a body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of 30 or greater (≥27 in persons with ≥1 weight-related coexisting condition), who did not have diabetes, and randomly assigned them, in a 2:1 ratio, to 68 weeks of treatment with once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide (at a dose of 2.4 mg) or placebo, plus lifestyle intervention. The coprimary end points were the percentage change in body weight and weight reduction of at least 5%. The primary estimand (a precise description of the treatment effect reflecting the objective of the clinical trial) assessed effects regardless of treatment discontinuation or rescue interventions. RESULTS: The mean change in body weight from baseline to week 68 was -14.9% in the semaglutide group as compared with -2.4% with placebo, for an estimated treatment difference of -12.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -13.4 to -11.5; P<0.001). More participants in the semaglutide group than in the placebo group achieved weight reductions of 5% or more (1047 participants [86.4%] vs. 182 [31.5%]), 10% or more (838 [69.1%] vs. 69 [12.0%]), and 15% or more (612 [50.5%] vs. 28 [4.9%]) at week 68 (P<0.001 for all three comparisons of odds). The change in body weight from baseline to week 68 was -15.3 kg in the semaglutide group as compared with -2.6 kg in the placebo group (estimated treatment difference, -12.7 kg; 95% CI, -13.7 to -11.7). Participants who received semaglutide had a greater improvement with respect to cardiometabolic risk factors and a greater increase in participant-reported physical functioning from baseline than those who received placebo. Nausea and diarrhea were the most common adverse events with semaglutide; they were typically transient and mild-to-moderate in severity and subsided with time. More participants in the semaglutide group than in the placebo group discontinued treatment owing to gastrointestinal events (59 [4.5%] vs. 5 [0.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: In participants with overweight or obesity, 2.4 mg of semaglutide once weekly plus lifestyle intervention was associated with sustained, clinically relevant reduction in body weight. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; STEP 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03548935).

Bariatric and metabolic surgery during and after the COVID-19 pandemic: DSS recommendations for management of surgical candidates and postoperative patients and prioritisation of access to surgery.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is wreaking havoc on society, especially health-care systems, including disrupting bariatric and metabolic surgery. The current limitations on accessibility to non-urgent care undermine postoperative monitoring of patients who have undergone such operations. Furthermore, like most elective surgery, new bariatric and metabolic procedures are being postponed worldwide during the pandemic. When the outbreak abates, a backlog of people seeking these operations will exist. Hence, surgical candidates face prolonged delays of beneficial treatment. Because of the progressive nature of obesity and diabetes, delaying surgery increases risks for morbidity and mortality, thus requiring strategies to mitigate harm. The risk of harm, however, varies among patients, depending on the type and severity of their comorbidities. A triaging strategy is therefore needed. The traditional weight-centric patient-selection criteria do not favour cases based on actual clinical needs. In this Personal View, experts from the Diabetes Surgery Summit consensus conference series provide guidance for the management of patients while surgery is delayed and for postoperative surveillance. We also offer a strategy to prioritise bariatric and metabolic surgery candidates on the basis of the diseases that are most likely to be ameliorated postoperatively. Although our system will be particularly germane in the immediate future, it also provides a framework for long-term clinically meaningful prioritisation.